Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:24:17 +0200 From: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=c3=b6rlein?= <uqs@freebsd.org> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org>, Ryan Moeller <freqlabs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, freebsd-git <freebsd-git@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenZFS branch tracking policy Message-ID: <2b404ead-d862-c4ba-41cd-4ceb1246ce6f@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrL=194g-yn95R_qEYsyGf4O=KYNdHvoNRqcRkK7xkSBA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2DS=nsE3-JQdqQC797xQhAiBACkuyA%2BcxkcRY0yeB_6=w@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoPm0tfDpBTU8ORy-_Oa-tkiNX0_MeAdJn0T5ZJdQe6MQ@mail.gmail.com> <41924e9d-9d61-6646-6c8f-e4458f94296e@FreeBSD.org> <30f529c1-6087-e704-8cc7-0c48a40b7430@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfp3EJ%2BbrNM02Sfzu_Y42VDEADiApFaX0V9bu_jb5NWd4w@mail.gmail.com> <f8d7a7f3-63a2-434f-054c-fadb9131cf82@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfoPzNFSp2sW94Ken=u7DstHL_BWFmjV5MBD4cRBo3t_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9679ec9d-4916-92b7-ff70-0050d699875c@FreeBSD.org> <YHQMru4/ay8lINSk@acme.spoerlein.net> <da88bd06-7e79-3d2c-38ee-84424a3cef1d@FreeBSD.org> <YHWskVAE3iL8DyYX@acme.spoerlein.net> <CANCZdfrL=194g-yn95R_qEYsyGf4O=KYNdHvoNRqcRkK7xkSBA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you guys for your input. OpenZFS 2.1 has already gone -RC3, eliminating even more diffs the code=20 in our tree. I have merged OpenZFS-2.1 RC1 the old way up to the last common commit.=20 I don't know who or what body is in charge to make a decision on this=20 matter but I would be very happy if a decision is made. I am personally=20 slightly in favor of merging directly from OpenZFS as it makes my work=20 easier and less prone to mistakes but I don't object doing it the "old"=20 way. But even the "old" way is going to be different, as it would mean=20 doing vendor merges into stable/13 what we are not used to. On the other = hand I do "squashed" imports anyway so I could cherry-pick from the new=20 vendor branch into stable/13 as well. One way or another, I would like to continue pushing recent OpenZFS code = to our tree. Martin On 13. 4. 2021 18:39, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein <uqs@freebsd.org=20 > <mailto:uqs@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > Hmm, I don't have an opinion on that one really. Cherry-pick of > course > only works on a single commit and will not record an additional > parent, > while a merge commit will have (at least) 2 parents. > > > Correct. > > Some vendor branches sometimes have several commits in between a > merge > into head, so `git merge` is the natural extension of that. So > only some > folks can use cherry-pick and, as I said, I'm not sure what the > recording of 2 parents gives us ... > > > So for normal, low velocity updates, there's little benefit from doing = > more than what we've done with vendor imports. > > But for OpenZFS I think there's three primary values from store their=20 > branches in our tree and doing merge commits: > > (1) git blame works > (2) it's possible to bisect down to the exact commit > (3) Having the merge commits recorded as merge commits makes future=20 > commits easier (just like vendor branches). > > For most things, I agree with Uli: we should have some flavor of=20 > 'squash' commit that's not really a merge commit to do this.=C2=A0 But = for=20 > OpenZFS, I think there's enough synergy between the two project that=20 > having their branches in our tree would be a net win for both groups. > > Warner > > People with more vendor experience should chime in ... > > Cheers > Uli > > On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 13:08:59 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: > >If we keep the "old way" than I have an additional question: > > > >Wouldn't a "git cherry-pick -Xsubtree=3Dsys/contrib/openzfs" from = the > >vendor branch be a better way to go than "git merge > >-Xsubtree=3Dsys/contrib/openzfs"? Especially for stable/13, where = I > have > >to "merge" in the whole new vendor/openzfs/zfs-2.1-release branch.= > > > >mm > > > >On 12. 4. 2021 11:02, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrote: > >> On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 01:03:30 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: > >>> Thank you for your comments, Warner. > >>> > >>> What I would like to know is the timing - how much time do we > need to > >>> resolve the issues. I can pull in the OpenZFS code up to commit= > >>> 3522f57b6 the "old" way. This is the last commit common to > master and > >>> zfs-2.1-release and can be cherry-picked to stable/13 the > "old" way. > >>> This will keep our code on par with openzfs-2.1-rc1 (rc2 is > out now) and > >>> I can add a 2-week MFC for stable/13 as usual but there are no > >>> significant changes at all. After that we need to split main an= d > >>> stable/13 and ideally move to direct tracking of OpenZFS. > >>> > >>> I have added some comments below. > >> > >> I think we should continue with the old way of squashing vendor > >> changes in, for the main reason of bloat and slowdown for our > users. > >> Note that unlike SVN, a regular user who builds world will > clone all > >> of the git repo including all history. We have many more users > than we > >> have developers working on contrib software, so the slight > convenience > >> of a few FreeBSD devs comes at the cost of the majority of our > users. :( > >> > >> I understand the confusion of a broken `git blame` and I'm > wondering > >> if it wouldn't be enough for the folks that want this to fetch t= he > >> full OpenZFS repo into their FreeBSD repo. Then when the need > arises > >> to `git blame foo/bar.c` they see an "unhelpful" commit that say= s > >> "upstream 01234abcdef was merged" upon which you can run `git bl= ame > >> 01234abcdef -- foo/bar.c` (paths will be different but it all > can be > >> hidden behind some script and git alias). > >> > >> Would that ease enough of the developers pain? > >> > >> I wish more stuff would move into ports (llvm, lldb) for reasons= of > >> size also. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Uli >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2b404ead-d862-c4ba-41cd-4ceb1246ce6f>